I read the story and I enjoyed it. But I immediately wondered where he was getting some of his very detailed nuggets. There's no doubt that this was written to give most readers the impression that SEALs were, in some form, primary sources. So now we know, definitely, they weren't.
The real question: how in the heck did the New Yorker vet this thing, from a fact-checking standpoint? The New Yorker has what's likely the most venerable fact-checking process in the magazine business. Most magazines have dismantled much of their dedicated fact-checking staffs to cut costs. The New Yorker, however, has soldiered on (as far as I know). So how were these details squared? How is it possible to ensure veracity of details, such as those fingering the events inside the helicopter, without a primary source?
I tend to believe much of the spirit of the story. But this is not a ripping book account of the raid (where more liberties are expected to be taken), this is the New Yorker. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds...
The New Yorker has been the publisher of the best investigative journalism about the wars, and so it does seem like quite a change that it would publish a sloppy article that implied a firsthand account when none existed.
I wouldn't say it was "sloppy". The sourcing is more or less precise. And all of their most gripping stories put the reader "there"...For example, this phenomenal piece about a Texas execution of a likely innocent man:
But in that case, most of the main players had died, and so the reader already knows that he's getting details that come from letters and interviews...but we know that because we know who the main players are in the first place...In the New Yorker piece, all sources have been muddied up, deliberately, so that even if you know that no SEALs were talking, it still seems like this is a comprehensive report. But for all we know, this could be the Navy's public information officer. Or Pres. Obama himself. Neither of which would be considered the best sources for an end-all what-really-happened in-depth article.
we're all free to hypothesize. I'd start with what would be the probability that a young hapless freelance journalist knowing Urdu language (and indicating on occasion his understanding of Pashto) who somehow decided to go to freelance in Pakistan (to cover, ie. to gather and analyze info on Muslim extremism there) and who has father from intelligence community wouldn't be asked to run some small errand for CIA/whatever? Or may be a little bigger errand with much more deeper involvement ... wouldn't it increase the probability of his exposure to the info? What the probability what this article in NY is just a cashing out on the info and not a part of of the continuous operation/post operation cleaning/freelance journalist cover maintenance/etc...?
> The New Yorker has what's likely the most venerable fact-checking process in the magazine business.
Note that "fact-checking" is actually quote verification and/or finding someone else who says that she believes the same thing.
For example, the "rockets can't work in space because there's nothing to push against" bit in the
13 January 1920 NYT editorial trashing Goddard (mentioned in http://astronauticsnow.com/history/goddard/index.html) could easily have survived "fact checking".
The society and sports pages are the only places where you can rely on journalists wrt facts.
The real question: how in the heck did the New Yorker vet this thing, from a fact-checking standpoint? The New Yorker has what's likely the most venerable fact-checking process in the magazine business. Most magazines have dismantled much of their dedicated fact-checking staffs to cut costs. The New Yorker, however, has soldiered on (as far as I know). So how were these details squared? How is it possible to ensure veracity of details, such as those fingering the events inside the helicopter, without a primary source?
I tend to believe much of the spirit of the story. But this is not a ripping book account of the raid (where more liberties are expected to be taken), this is the New Yorker. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds...